"Microfinance institutions (MFIs) must balance financial and social goals. When these coopetitive goals are under threat, which goals do MFIs prefer? Based on the theory of myopic loss aversion, our study aims to assess the immediate effect of the 2016 demonetization in India on MFIs and their loan portfolio performance and on unintended social outcomes. Using the 2016 demonetization in India as a quasi-experiment, we find that MFIs had a lower 30-day and 90-day portfolio at risk (PAR) and implemented better client protection terms. In addition, demonetization had a small but positive effect on developing start-up enterprises and serving more clients below the poverty line. Last, we find that MFIs investing in female client education presented a lower PAR after demonetization. Overall, our study sheds light on the unintended consequences on MFIs as a result of the demonetization event, and it provides policy implications for MFIs."

"This article traces experiments aimed at promoting wider adoption of ‘microinsurance’ – small, simplified insurance policies targeting the poorest. Microinsurance is a central element of a wider turn towards the promotion of ‘resilience’ in global development. The development of commercial markets for microinsurance, however, has failed to meet the expectations of promoters. This article traces the ways that the diverse donor agencies, professional organizations and philanthropic organizations involved in the promotion of microinsurance have responded to these failures, primarily by seeking to articulate basic data infrastructures that might make possible profitable insurance operations."

"Microinsurance emerged out of different but parallel debates about the reformulation and expansion of social protection amidst the devastation of structural adjustment. It was, at least in its initial articulations, explicitly counterposed to the ‘market’-based solutions proffered by the World Bank, the IMF, and their allies. Yet, by the early 2000s, microinsurance and microcredit were being promoted in strikingly similar terms to the approaches they had initially opposed, and by the same actors."

"This paper examines how Impact Investment (II) becomes part and transforms structured accumulation regimes and circuits, with a particular emphasis on South Africa's agricultural sector. Through the joint implementation of a macro study of the South African II circuits, and a micro study of a particular II fund’s practices and impacts, the paper develops an in-depth political economy assessment of II circuits in order to historicize these circuits, to map the South African II community, and to characterize the power balances presently structuring it. Rather than highlighting ruptures, it draws the attention to the historical continuities and path-dependencies as II related tools are rooted into older financial practices, shaping today's II development and practice - hence questioning II as a tool for empowerment."

"The necessity to mobilize capital on a localized or regionalized basis has been labeled Place-Based Impact Investing. This article will review the research and conclusions that have fueled the need for Place-Based Impact Investing, identify the current thought leaders, and describe some of the early efforts at mobilizing "legacy capital" into communities to support the growing but underfunded innovative companies. We also will explore some of the new methods, vehicles, and overlooked tax laws that can accelerate the mobilization of capital on a more geographic and meritocratic manner."

"The paper provides empirical evidence on impediments of the emerging social impact investment field in Germany. The study is based on 19 in-depth interviews with social impact investing funds, investment advisors, and social entrepreneurs as investees. It takes an explorative approach because of the nascent stage of research on the subject. By systematically relating the perspectives of the actors involved, the study gives a broad empirical picture on the major challenges for social impact investing in Germany. Results reveal nine critical problem areas we have arranged along three dimensions: financial returns, social returns, and relationships and infrastructure."

"Impact investors pursue both financial and social goals and have become an important source of funding for social enterprises. Our study assesses impact investor criteria when screening social enterprises. Applying an experimental conjoint analysis to a sample of 179 impact investors, we find that the three most important criteria are the authenticity of the founding team, the importance of the societal problem targeted by the venture, and the venture's financial sustainability. We then compare the importance of these screening criteria across different types of impact investors (i.e., donors, equity investors, and debt investors). We find that donors pay more attention to the importance of the societal problem and less attention to financial sustainability than do equity and debt investors. Additionally, equity investors place a higher value on the large-scale implementation of the social project than do debt investors. We contribute to the nascent literature on impact investing by documenting how impact investors make investment decisions and by providing a nuanced view of different investor types active in this novel market. Practical implications exist for both impact investors and social enterprises."

"One of the ways to understand the success of impact investing firms is to examine how they add value to the social enterprises they invest. Did their investment boost social and/or environmental change? And what type of support, beyond financial capital, can they provide to enhance impact? Drawing on a design-based methodology, we seek to address some of these questions by developing a tool called the Impact Oriented Value Framework. Putting impact at the centre of the funds' purpose, the framework provides actionable solutions to infuse impact into investors’ non-financial support strategies and activities, enhancing their additionality to portfolio companies as well as their contribution to the impact ecosystem."

"Using a unique sample of retail impact investors, this study evaluates how investors deal with the challenge of aligning their financial and their nonfinancial goals. We find that investors with stronger nonfinancial motives are more likely to expect the overperformance of an impact investment and the underperformance of traditional equity and bond investments than investors with weaker nonfinancial motives. This cross-asset relationship between nonfinancial motives and expected performance indicates that investors form expectations that fit with the investment decisions that their nonfinancial motives are likely to motivate. We also find that after experiencing losses, investors with stronger nonfinancial motives are less likely to revise their expectation that the impact investment will underperform and more likely to expect that the impact investment will overperform than other investors. Our findings provide further evidence that preferences can affect expectations, and challenge conclusions drawn from observed behavior regarding investors’ willingness to pay for impact."